Search results

If the improved grappler "is not considered grappled itself", I don't see anything preventing it.

That appears to be incorrect. The rules say: "You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling" This appears to also include attacking with more than two weapons, since the Rake description says: "Normally, a monster can attack with only one of its natural weapons while grappling"

Yes. However, some creatures (like bipeds) might require a special saddle, be at a penalty, or not be allowed according to your DM. Only if the abilities can be used on others as normal. From the Rules of the Game (if desired): "Intelligent Mounts According to the Dungeon Master's Guide, a mount...

Despite the conventional use, D&D uses the term "cohort" to refer to one creature (as opposed to the "followers" granted by leadership). This can be seen in the leadership description, the Thaumaturgist's planar cohort description, and in several other descriptions regarding cohorts.

Cohorts can be acquired by means other than the leadership feat, and so one could theoretically still have multiple cohorts without take the same feat multiple times. Whether a DM allows taking leadership multiple times though is a judgement call.

As mentioned: equipping him as an *NPC* is expected. You can increase the CR (or provide an ad-hoc bonus) if he has substantially more gear than that (same with any creature or situation). Mind you, it the PC's get this gear afterwards, then they are already getting a major bonus, so I often...

Ditto from the opposing side. However, we are merely trying to relate that: 1) (Many) more people will find your way strange than our way 2) The rules and their writer's are not perfect, nor should we expect such. Some common sense is the expected default in interpreting them.

My point is not how one rationalizes something to themselves, but in recognizing how regular people (and/or the majority of players) might look at one with a "WTF" expression. I personally feel this is a concern (and sometimes feel an obligation to try to make someone aware of such situations)...

Taking that statement at face value: I can assure you that the literalism would (demonstrably) be viewed as odd by a "normal" person. I understand that our hobby contains many unconventional thinkers (and that's ok), but often such thinkers won't recognize their own unconventionality. When...

How do they rationally explain that? I definitely would've, but the literalism on this board often surprises me. Has there been a poll on this one yet? What percentage would qualify for "generally accepted"? Agreed. For the OP: yeah, enlarged spiked chain wielder = 50' wide circle o' death...

For simplicity, I usually just treat it as a standard charge attack (+1 for height advantage). I know it's not perfect, but the falling object rules are less so, and my motto for unusual stunts is: "The rules for doing something in the usual way can also be used for doing the same thing in an...

Dunno (can't speak for him), but the 'point' as I gave it is a premise. A conclusion I might draw from it is that it is pointless to base an argument on WotC's perceived definition of "weapon".

I think his point might be that "weapon" doesn't appear to be a rigidly defined term in D&D, and is applicable to many things.

From the core rules: - The core Lycanthrope rules allow for were-dogs (as well as a were-riding dogs or any other type of were-animal). - Gnolls are effectively dog-head humanoids - Hound Archon - Kobolds used to be depicted as dog-headed.

If so, I wish he would label it as such. While Hyp has excellent rules 'knowledge', I often see it abased by literalisms and (apparent) disinterest in the writer's intent. Indeed, I have "six examples supporting me" from other published sources, but I haven't presented them here because they...

Agreed. I'll just put that down as another rule option that the RotG (and other supplements) sometime present... albeit one which players will be unlikely to avail themselves of.

In 1st and 2nd edition, the spell was continually hostile to anyone in the area, regardless of them being grappled. I don't see the writer intending to depart from that paradigm. But ultimately: if I ruled that someone could safely stand around in the tentacles after avoiding the first grapple...

Well, the spell does say: "they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage. The tentacles continue to crush the opponent..." True, it says this in regard to those grappled, but it does make clear that the tentacles are continually aggressive...

I would contend that it is not confusing (i.e. almost everyone would arrive at my conclusion). A poll could answer that. Does your argument also imply that the following rule does not apply to wands: "If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action...

Yup. I'll edit my post for clarity then.